I took a look at Shell's first ever 1.5C scenario and found that it is... remarkably similar to its “well-below 2C” scenario.

Oil, gas, coal, solar.... all basically unchanged.

The key difference: A new forest the size of Brazil to suck up the extra CO2.

Including "nature-based solutions" in the outlook brings forward the date for net-zero emissions to 2058.

Without them their pathway for CO2 emissions is the same as the previous one.

(It's also towards the higher end of 1.5C emissions pathways.)
The "Brazil-sized" forest idea isn't actually new, it has been kicking around for a couple of years.

It was referenced in the "well-below 2C" scenario although not formally included in it, and Shell's CEO has been framing it as the only viable way of getting to 1.5C.
Fine, but who is going to plant all those trees? Well... Shell says it will plant some of them.

Only yesterday Shell said forests were a key part of its net-zero strategy.

Not everyone is convinced though

Given that Shell's 1.5C scenario also sees a big scaling up of bioenergy, the question remains: where are all those trees and bioenergy crops going to go?
Shell's scenario sits towards the higher end of 1.5C scenarios that scientists have come up with for energy use, oil, coal and solar

For emissions removed using carbon capture technology, it actually sits at the lower end. 1.5C scenarios rely _a lot_ on (largely untested) CCS
So getting to 1.5C is hard and most estimates say it will rely on lots of carbon removal.

Of course, the more fossil fuels are burned, the harder it gets.

Shell says oil and gas, “will remain significant for decades” and “there needs to be continued investment in…supply”.
Finally, Shell says it makes these scenarios not as forecasts or to reflect a business plan, but rather as “a useful tool for exploring future possibilities”.

A legal disclaimer adds:

“Ultimately, whether society meets its goals to decarbonise is not within Shell’s control.”
For more details on all of this, check out my analysis of Shells "Sky 1.5 scenario" in this piece >>>>


More from Science

I want to share my thoughts, as someone who has been so alarmed by the so-called "dissident" scientists like Gupta, Heneghan, Kuldorff, Bhattacharya, & Ioannidis who consider themselves brave Galileos unfairly treated by "establishment scientists." I will try not to swear. 1/n

I want to talk about 3 things:
‼️Their fringe views are inhumane, unethical junk science that promotes harm
‼️They complain that they've been marginalized but this is simply untrue
‼️I am sick of people telling me we have to "listen to both sides." There aren't 2 sides here 2/n

These 'dissident' scientists have consistently downplayed COVID-19, urging policymakers not to take aggressive control measures. They claim it is not a serious threat. Gupta even went on TV saying people under 65 shouldn't worry about it!


They have consistently argued that policymakers should just let the virus rip, in an attempt to reach herd immunity by natural infection. Kuldorff *continues* to argue for this even now that we have many highly effective, safe vaccines.

We've never controlled a deadly, contagious pandemic before by just letting the virus spread, as this approach kills & disables too many people. In Manaus, Brazil, 66% of the city was infected & an astonishing *1 in 500* people died of COVID-19

You May Also Like